which is your opinion. but what if you're wrong and a Higher Truth is right?

I see.. you have no clue what "demonstrably wrong" means do you.

I mean no disrespect to you or your family, but according to your beliefs what does it matter? Soon you will enter the endless oblivion hypothesized
by atheist ideology and all of your life will be for naught. I know how you feel because I used to believe this - I remember sitting in my bed around
the age of 13 thinking that the whole God/higher purpose was a farce and I contemplated my eternity of nothingness after this life. It is a dark road
to go down, and I promise you there is meaning to this life for those who seek it.

What a load of nonsense! My beliefs can't give my life meaning, only my actions in the hear and now give my life meaning. Do you honestly believe, if
your in some wonderland 500 million years from now, it gives your life meaning now? How so? and what's the point of life if you're gonna be in
wonderland forever?

I'm going to enjoy my moment in the light, to it's fullest, here and now, knowing a part of me will still be here in 500 million years and I don't
have to live through it!

Nobody is doomed to anything. You didn't exist before you were born, you won't exist after you die. The concept is that simple. None of that makes
our life today any less relevant. From a single cell to an intelligent conscious human being. We are here, now. Life still goes on.

massive rectangular pyramidal structure, oriented to true North, 210 by 150 feet, constructed with three levels of terraces, standing
originally between 70 and 100 feet high. Three monumental staircases led up to a gate at the first terrace level. Next, a single staircase rose to a
second terrace which supported a platform on which a temple and the final and highest terrace stood. The core of the ziggurat is made of mud brick
covered with baked bricks laid with bitumen, a naturally occurring tar. Each of the baked bricks measured about 11.5 x 11.5 x 2.75 inches and weighed
as much as 33 pounds. The lower portion of the ziggurat, which supported the first terrace, would have used some 720,000 baked bricks. The resources
needed to build the Ziggurat at Ur are staggering.

The Bible's description of Solomon's Temple (also called The First Temple) suggests that the inside ceiling was was 180 feet long, 90
feet wide, and 50 feet high. The highest point on the Temple that King Solomon built was actually 120 cubits tall (about 20 stories or about 207
feet). According to the Tanach (II Chronicles): 3:3- "The length by cubits after the ancient measure was threescore cubits, and the
breadth twenty cubits". 3:4- "And the porch that was before the house, the length of it, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty
cubits, and the height a hundred and twenty; and he overlaid it within with pure gold." Solomon spared no expense for the building's creation. He
ordered vast quantities of cedar wood from King Hiram of Tyre (I Kings 5:20­25), had huge blocks of the choicest stone quarried, and commanded that
the building's foundation be laid with hewn stone. To complete the massive project, he imposed forced labor on all his subjects, drafting people for
work shifts that sometimes lasted a month at a time. Some 3,300 officials were appointed to oversee the Temple's erection (5:27­30). Solomon assumed
such heavy debts in building the Temple that he is forced to pay off King Hiram by handing over twenty towns in the Galilee (I Kings 9:11). When
the Temple was completed, Solomon inaugurated it with prayer and sacrifice, and even invited non­Jews to come and pray there. He urged God to pay
particular heed to their prayers: "Thus all the peoples of the earth will know Your name and revere You, as does Your people Israel; and they will
recognize that Your name is attached to this House that I have built" (I Kings 8:43).

Solomon's Temple (966 BC - 586 BC) "In the 480th year after Israelites had come out of Egypt," (i.e., 12 x 40 years ) Solomon began to build
the temple, (1Kgs. 6:1). Solomon's temple was 36,000 cubic cubits, built by 3,600 foremen, (1Kgs. 6:2; 2Chron. 2:2). The Most Holy Place was inlaid
with 600 tons of gold, the weight of 36,000 golden nails, (2Chron. 3:9). The Most Holy Place was 20 cubits wide; the Holy Place was 40 cubits wide,
and the portico was 10 cubits wide, a total of 70 cubits. The temple is arranged in (the doubling of) the "time, times, and a half-time" pattern.
[I.e., "one year, two years, and half-a-year."] The fact that it is doubled emphasizes that the portico represents the 7th day or year. [3½ x 2 = 7.]
It, thus, is patterned after the creation narrative. Most scholars (according to my research) feel that the portico was 20 cubits high. If so, then
it had 4000 cubic cubits of space, thus a total of 40,000 cubits since the temple proper was 36,000 cubic cubits. Compare this 36,000 + 4,000 = 40,000
pattern with the basic 36 + 4 = 40-year cycle of the 360 calendar. Notice that the 4-years cycle is the last of 7 cycles thereby patterning itself
after the creation also. "God rested on the 7th day and separated/sanctified it."

a reply to: SLAYER69
I watched all 8 videos and found them most interesting. The sheer volume of synchronous numerical factoids contained within is quite startling. It's
very difficult to rationally deny the influence of some sort of advanced knowledge being involved with the manufacture of these structures. Sure, you
could say it's a co-incidence and vast numbers of intriguing patterns can be extracted by a sufficiently motivated individual, but the sheer volume of
links to the same few numbers derived from this information is a lot more difficult to dismiss. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

DO NUMBERS have hidden meaning? “Of course!” some exclaim, pointing to an intriguing example—the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

“The moment I heard the news,” says one numerologist, “I noticed the date: 9-11-2001.” The number 11 is generally considered to be one of the
“master numbers” by numerologists. So numerology enthusiasts have compiled a list of various items related to the terrorist attack that point to
the “master number” 11. This is just a portion of what they found:

▪ The tragedy occurred on the date 9/11. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

▪ September 11 was the 254th day of the year. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

▪ The airplane that hit the north tower was Flight 11.

▪ That flight had 92 people on board. 9 + 2 = 11.

▪ The airplane that hit the south tower had 65 passengers. 6 + 5 = 11.

▪ The Twin Towers resembled the number 11.

▪ In English the expression “New York City” has 11 letters.

Numerology—in which special significance is attached to figures, their combinations, and numerical totals—has been a widespread practice in
Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Why the allure? According to one Web site, decoding the letters of the alphabet used in names—one popular aspect of
numerology—“yields accurate information concerning personality, nature, qualities and shortcomings.” According to this source, studying our
“date of birth uncovers our life path, with its joys and trials.”

Are these claims true? Or could there be hidden dangers in the metaphysical study of numbers?

The Allure of Numbers

IMAGINE a world without numbers. There would be no money. Trade would be restricted to face-to-face barter. And what about sports? Without numbers,
not only would we be unable to keep score but we could not even define how many players should be on each team!

Besides their practical application, however, numbers carry an aura of mystery. This is because they are abstract. You cannot see, touch, or feel
numbers. To illustrate: An apple has a distinct color, texture, size, shape, smell, and taste. You can check each of these properties to see whether a
certain object is indeed an apple, a lemon, a ball, or something else. A number, however, is not like that. One collection of seven items may not
share anything in common with another collection of seven items—other than their “sevenness.” Hence, to comprehend the meaning of numbers—for
example, to discern the difference between six and seven—is to grasp something very abstract indeed. And this is where number mystics come into the
picture.

From Pythagoras to Pseudoscience

Attributing special meaning to numbers was common in ancient societies. Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher and mathematician who lived during the
sixth century B.C.E., taught that all things can be reduced to numerical patterns. He and his followers reasoned that the whole universe exemplifies
order and proportion. Could it not be, then, that mathematical relationships are inherent in all material things?

Since Pythagoras’ day, numerical readings have been used for prediction and dream interpretation as well as for memory aids. They have been employed
by Greeks, Muslims, and members of Christendom. Using a system of numerology called gematria, Jewish Cabalists assigned a numerical value to each of
the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and thereby claim to have found hidden meanings in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Modern-day numerology is similar. Often, your name and birth date will be the starting point. A numerical value is assigned to each letter in your
name. By adding these—along with the numbers of your birth month and date—a numerologist establishes your key numbers. He then ascribes special
meaning to these numbers, which he feels provide a complete description of you—including your personality, your unconscious desires, and your
destiny.

Perhaps the real attraction of numerology lies in the seeming accuracy of its analysis. “Many people have come to believe in numerology through
finding how closely the numbers fit those to whom they are applied,” writes Edward Albertson in his book Prophecy for the Millions. Yet, numerology
has also been labeled a pseudoscience. Why? Are there reasons for you to be suspicious of its claims?

HIDDEN MESSAGES IN THE BIBLE?

In his book The Bible Code, journalist Michael Drosnin claims to have discovered hidden messages by means of computer analysis of the Hebrew
Scriptures. According to Drosnin’s claims, the “code” yielded the words “assassin that will assassinate” along with the name Yitzhak
Rabin—and this was found a year before Israeli Prime Minister Rabin was killed.

As expected, The Bible Code created its share of controversy. Dave Thomas, a mathematician and physicist, demonstrated that computer analysis of any
text will produce what appear to be cryptic messages. Analyzing Drosnin’s own text, Thomas came up with the words “code,” “silly,” and
“hoax.” “Hidden messages can be found anywhere,” Thomas says, “provided you’re willing to invest time and effort to harvest the vast field
of probability.”

With its capability of making an unlimited number of calculations, a computer would likely find some combinations of letters that could be used as
some sort of prediction. But this is merely a coincidence and does not prove that the Bible contains hidden
messages.*
...
...
...

I took my first Honors Bio course in 9th grade, and then AP in 11th grade. I got a 5/5 on the AP test. I took biology again while studying
neuroscience at the university level. It was my studies of the endless intricacies of neural systems that made me realize our brain is way too complex
to have been created through the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.

Coop, I see you're at it again - statements with no evidence. Does life have a higher purpose? Life's purpose can be as high as you want it to be.
You can shoot for the stars and the heights of knowledge or remain ignorant in the gutter. What you fail to understand, even after hundreds of pages
of posts from those of us who actually do science and understand it, is that scientific knowledge is pragmatic - it doesn't have an opinion. It only
has evidence. You and the Creationist crowd have created some Disneyland type of world view that excludes that evidence.

If there is a higher being out there, I think she would be embarrassed at the way you are misrepresenting how knowledge is acquired. It's not the
made up mess of contradictions that you and others pander to anyone who will listen. It's actually very simple: it's called the Scientific Method.
You should apply it some time to your "hypotheses".

You might even get an answer to the "big foot" question down in Texas - remember that conversation? They're still looking for the leash that the guy
had on his dinosaur while out for a stroll.

You have eyes but you don't see - let's do a brief analysis on vision. Light first enters through the lens which is controlled by involuntary ciliary
muscles that contract and relax to alter the lens' convexity: this allows quick focusing on far or near objects without your conscious input. Your eye
also secretes the perfect solution to perpetuate the working of this lens and its adjacent muscles, this has been proven to have the ability to
maintain a healthy lens for over 100 years. For protection, this lens (and the rest of the eyeball) has lids that automatically blink to reapply the
lens serum and keep it wet while also having an automated reflex that protects the eye from any impending object (this reflex circuit alone warrants
its own textbook) .

Once the light passes through the lens it reaches the retina - a beautiful array of neurons that are synchronized with rod and cone cells that absorb
impending light rays. This array is capable of switching from day to night vision in minutes. The retinal array projects this image through the optic
nerve - the presence of this nerve creates a small blind spot in each eye because there are no light-receptive cells there, but this is attenuated by
the other eye which fills in the other's blind spot.

This signal from the eye to the brain is very fast because the neurons have layers of myelin sheath surrounding the axons - this allows the
electrochemical signal going down the axon to go dramatically faster, this is called saltatory conduction. Because it wouldn't be ideal for vision
processing if the input from one eye went to only one cerebral hemisphere, these circuits cross at the optic chiasm which allows each hemisphere to
receive input from both eyes: the left cerebral hemisphere perceives the right visual field and the right cerebral hemisphere perceives the left
visual field. Once it finally reaches the occipital lobe for processing, the incoming data is parsed from crude circles and other shapes into the
clear and lucid image we perceive on a daily basis. The depth of complexity involved with this processing is unfathomable - there are approximately
140 million neurons and 1.1 billion glial cells that are in the visual cortex alone. Riddle me this - how could evolution, by piecewise mutation,
account for all of these cells, not to mention, allow them to work in a synchronized fashion?

None of this beautiful science matches the beauty of gazing into the eyes of a lover.

If you think this complex neural circuit could have occurred from random mutation, then there will be no convincing you otherwise until you get your
own head out of the sand.

The depth of complexity involved with this processing is unfathomable - there are approximately 140 million neurons and 1.1 billion glial cells that
are in the visual cortex alone. Riddle me this - how could evolution, by piecewise mutation, account for all of these cells, not to mention, allow
them to work in a synchronized fashion?

Disregarding evolution for a minute, if you knew anything at all about cellular biology you would know the answer to your own question.

But you're very eloquent, I'll give you that. Perhaps a script writer for a movie is in your future? That's not an insult - I'm serious - write a
novel or a movie script. The world can always use a great new lover.

P.S. Here's a hint: Look up structure-function. Whether it's a relatively simple adipocyte or a complex neuron, the structure-function relationship
holds. How could it come together without outside intervention? Simple. Self assembly. Nature fills the requirement of an organism by allowing it
to adapt, change and evolve for its survival.
A salamander changes color when exposed to an environmental stress. It's not magic. It's nature, physics and chemistry. The chromatophores that
function as light detectors have the same evolutionary path as complex neuronal networks in the brain. In fact, chromatophores may be more complex
because they are photon-sensitive, which most cells are not.

You're fixated on what you view as extreme complexity. It may be black magic to you, but the anatomy of the eye and how it functions isn't a mystery
to your ophthalmologist when you go for a new pair of glasses.

You're fixated on what you view as extreme complexity. It may be black magic to you, but the anatomy of the eye and how it functions isn't a
mystery to your ophthalmologist when you go for a new pair of glasses.

I never said anything was black magic. I said we cannot grasp the image processing that occurs in the visual cortex. Optics (glasses) are pretty
straight-forward - Apply an external lens to attenuate for the abnormality in the organic lens.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Nature fills the requirement of an organism by allowing it to adapt, change and evolve for its survival.

You're taking these forces, which you call nature, for granted. how can any explanation in microbiology explain how all these neuron and glial cells
develop into a coherent, orchestrated structure that allows visual processing. Did you know that all it takes is one excitotoxic neuron to cause an
epileptic attack??? These systems are so intricately designed that this rarely happens. Not to mention embryonic development! WHAT is telling this
stuff where to go? How is all of this coded into a DNA-based code that was built one nucleotide/codon mutation at a time? Are you telling me that one
nucleotide or codon addition would be able to:

1) increase cellular quantity in a particular brain area
2) increase cranial capacity to allow increase brain size
3) orchestrate embryonic development so that these cells go to the correct area
4) connect these cells in the visual cortex to the optic nerve
5) This new mutation rewrote an old DNA sequence - this new code must forego the function of the old sequence, while adding all of the above
functions, otherwise dramatic loss of function will occur.

The more you understand about the interdependence of molecules, cells, organs, and organ systems, the more you realize the impossibility of adding
intelligible features by piecewise mutation one nucleotide/codon at a time!

But you're very eloquent, I'll give you that. Perhaps a script writer for a movie is in your future? That's not an insult - I'm serious - write
a novel or a movie script. The world can always use a great new lover.

The more you understand about the interdependence of molecules, cells, organs, and organ systems, the more you realize the impossibility of adding
intelligible features by piecewise mutation one nucleotide/codon at a time!

Where did you ever get that idea? Mutations happen thousands of times per day. And if you were right (which you are not), who exactly is
manipulating genomes right now? Evolution is an ongoing process - and you're telling me that someone out there is pulling the strings and playing the
fiddle at this very moment.

Here's a research article about a newly evolved species of Chlamydia - given your position on evolution and its complexity, I would assume that your
ID being actually caused this evolutionary change - that it's entirely too complex for it to occur naturally and spontaneously? Please explain your
position because you're implying that every permanent change to organisms on this planet is being guided by some unseen creature at the wheel. If the
ID being were that smart, he/she/it would plant the seed and design a program like evolution to allow the organisms to develop on their own. The
alternative would be for the being to be sitting at its laptop ad infinitum changing and manipulating genetic codes. Really now.........you don't
believe that, do you???????????

Abstract
Chlamydiaceae are obligate intracellular bacteria that cause a diversity of severe infections among humans and livestock on a global scale.
Identification of new species since 1989 and emergence of zoonotic infections, including abortion in women, underscore the need for genome sequencing
of multiple strains of each species to advance our knowledge of evolutionary dynamics across Chlamydiaceae. Here, we genome sequenced isolates from
avian, lower mammalian and human hosts. Based on core gene phylogeny, five isolates previously classified as Chlamydia abortus were identified as
members of Chlamydia psittaci and Chlamydia pecorum. Chlamydia abortus is the most recently emerged species and is a highly monomorphic group that
lacks the conserved virulence-associated plasmid. Low-level recombination and evidence for adaptation to the placenta echo evolutionary processes seen
in recently emerged, highly virulent niche-restricted pathogens, such as Bacillus anthracis. In contrast, gene flow occurred within C. psittaci and
other Chlamydiaceae species. The C. psittaci strain RTH, isolated from a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), is an outlying strain with admixture of
C. abortus, C. psittaci, and its own population markers. An average nucleotide identity of less than 94% compared with other Chlamydiaceae species
suggests that RTH belongs to a new species intermediary between C. psittaci and C. abortus. Hawks, as scavengers and predators, have extensive
opportunities to acquire multiple species in their intestinal tract. This could facilitate transformation and homologous recombination with the
potential for new species emergence. Our findings indicate that incubator hosts such as birds-of-prey likely promote Chlamydiaceae evolution resulting
in novel pathogenic lineages.

But evolution, as per the theory, can only occur after the structure is already present. Evolution can't account for the origin of novel
morphologies or functions. I think this point tends to get lost in the shuffle of the debate.

You casually mentioned "self assembly". Where in evolutionary theory is this accounted for? Is this a matter of biophysics?

But evolution, as per the theory, can only occur after the structure is already present. Evolution can't account for the origin of novel
morphologies or functions. I think this point tends to get lost in the shuffle of the debate.

You casually mentioned "self assembly". Where in evolutionary theory is this accounted for? Is this a matter of biophysics?

I don't know where you get that impression - but it's wrong. Structure/function - look it up - in a biology book or on Google Scholar.

Self assembly is a known phenomenon. I'm not going to post research articles and spend time explaining them because no one reads them. If you're
interested in self assembly of molecular systems, then look it up.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.